I have been doing more reading about India and hunting in India back in the days of Jim Corbett and Ken Anderson. I think it is interesting that Anderson used a Winchester 1895 in .405 Win for most of his hunting. Corbett used a .275 Rigby. Both had .450/.400 doubles, but generally used their bolt rifles.

On AR we have learned -- and I have espoused -- that if it is not CRF or a double we need to leave it home or take substantial risk of death. I wonder if anyone bothered to tell that to Anderson using a lever action rifle? We have also learned -- and I have espoused -- that a .375 H&H is the minimum for dangerous game and certainly you should consider something bigger if it is available and you can shoot it. I wonder if anyone bothered to tell that to Corbett using a .275 Rigby? I just found it interesting that some of the more well known hunters in the past that were tracking and shooting man-eating tigers and leopards, were using rifles and calibers that many of us would renounce as dangerous game rifles today (and I understand that others like Roosevelt and Bell were doing the same thing in Africa). May not have been the ideal choices but they certainly worked for those gents, who I am sure were both accomplished marksmen.

Maybe it is time to pull out a lever action rifle for the next buffalo hunt . . .

quote:

Both had doubles, but generally used their bolt rifles.

Smart men! :-)

PS: I think they actually used Blasers

Mike,

I wonder if it was a case of what they had and what the could get ammo for.

Jeff

Jeff,

Maybe. But they both had .450/.400 doubles, and generally used their other rifle. Who knows. Just an interesting observation. Nice to meet you and your wife at SCI. If I can help answer any questions on doubles, give me a shout.

Mike,
I am pulling out a lever action rifle for my next buff hunt,the first buff with a lever,2nd with a DR

A quick point is that back in the day they did manage to wound a lot of animals, as stated in all there books, and the price back then for a wounded animal was zero to nothing.

Hunting dangerous game today with a larger calibre gives you the confidence of the one shot kill, or a better chance of not wounding and loosing your Prey,

I have a 275 Rigby and love hunting with it, don't think I would risk loosing a Big 5 animal just to have fun in trying to be like one of the old time hunters

JK

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I have been doing more reading about India and hunting in India back in the days of Jim Corbett and Ken Anderson. I think it is interesting that Anderson used a Winchester 1895 in .405 Win for most of his hunting.

I don't know if that is true regarding Anderson. If you do some research you will find that he was a fraud. Everything he wrote should be taken with a grain of salt.

Corbett on the other had was a "genius hunter" on the level of WDM Bell. Everything he claimed in his books is documented in offical records.

Yes, I have been told repeatedly that my Remingtons, even though they are the proper calibers, won't be reliable enough for Dangerous Game. All the way up til it's time for pictures to be taken.
I guess I should edit this to include being told that the Blaser S2 and the R8 won't work either.

I remember as a younger person reading about a Tiger hunter of great skill who killed a lot of Tigers. I BELIEVE he was a Catholic priest. The rifle he used was a Savage 99 and the caliber was 22 HiPower. He had a particular method of his kills which I remember were mostly one shot. He let the tiger feed on the bait and waited till he had it half digested and then he shot him in the stomach. Very successful but today would not be considered very sporting. I have heard man described as the most dangerous animal on earth and the standard military weapon is a 22. I have also heard more animals have been killed with a 22LR than any other caliber. A well designed bullet placed in the proper location will affect death on any animal and I don't think anyone can argue with that statement. That being said carry on with what to use based on something from somebody about what THEY used to use. Don't fail to leave out spears and big rocks.

Have to agree with both Mike and JK hunter
What I gathered from old books is that they used lighter rifles But for going after wounded DG they grabbed big doubles

Good post Mike. I think referring to your subject line, most of us (me too) do over think our rifle, calibre, projectiles, loads etc.

You don't see too many Ph's with fancy rifles and special loads. However:

1) it is fun to mess about with this stuff
2) it is very expensive if you wound an animal now days and not good form
3) I bet those guys 50 years ago were bloody good shots and not prone to any nervousness or wobbles when confronted to what might be a once in a few year (or lifetime?) shot.

Reading a great book by JA Hunter and he used a .275 in his early days on everything.

Certainly Mike you are right that the rifle and calibre is given way too much time and effort. It is fun though...

Cheers

Dan

I was hunting on a family ranch a number of years ago in the Lowveldt. Hanging on the wall was a battered Mauser 9x57. It belonged to their father and he used it for years before passing it on the the eldest son. It accounted for food for the table as well as protection and was successfully used on many lions and buffalo. I asked if it was adequate and the answer was it had to be.

Wally Johnson said he shot 30 to 40 lions in his early years with a 30-30. He does go on to say that he later realized he was under gunned and lucky that he lived to tell about it, having later in life used multiple shots from a 375 to stop lions.

It is also my understanding that the quality of ammo back then was not near as good as it is today.

quote:

Originally posted by jkhunter:
A quick point is that back in the day they did manage to wound a lot of animals, as stated in all there books,

Theo Roosevelt was known to be a hopeless shot with his big bores,..leaving a long string of wounded animals.

However I don't recall WDM Bell writing that he wounded lots of animals with his 6.5mm and 7mm.

Bell did state that cartridges such as the 7x57 were definitely not for the novice when it comes to the pursuit of DG.
He writes that a good number of ametuer-unskilled hunters got mauled by lions when using such cartridge.

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
What I gathered from old books is that they used lighter rifles
But for going after wounded DG they grabbed big doubles

Bell started the day carrying his 7x57...and.. ended the day carrying his 7x57.
Pursuing wounded Bulls or despatching charging Bulls, was all done with his trusty 7x57.

Bell and his 7x57 were solely responsible for assuring his own well being-survival as we all as that of his African helpers.
No failures on record.

Possibly it was a case there was not a place like AR where those folks could be taught the error of their ways?

Possibly it was because back in those days people relied more upon correct shot placement.

Possibly it was because back in those days, those folks were too stupid to realize they were under gunned.

Good one CHC

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I have been doing more reading about India and hunting in India back in the days of Jim Corbett and Ken Anderson. I think it is interesting that Anderson used a Winchester 1895 in .405 Win for most of his hunting.

I don't know if that is true regarding Anderson. If you do some research you will find that he was a fraud. Everything he wrote should be taken with a grain of salt.

That seems to be very much an open question. There are some, particularly in India, that have spent time researching his claims that have concluded he did in fact kill man-eating leopards and tigers. There are also pictures of him with dead tigers that he claims he hunted. I am aware of the rumors, but I think it is an overstatement to say he was a fraud based on what I have read. I will say that regardless, he is a wonderful writer and his stories are great reading.

http://www.africahunting.com/h...son-1910%961974.html

Mike,
In regards to Africa/India...I think the term DG rifle is to broad. It would be better to talk in terms of rifles suitable for ele/buff/rhino/hippo and then the cats.

Lion-many rifles suitable...I would not feel under gunned with my .308 Win shooting 165 gr TTSX.

Leopard-if in a blind...I would gladly shoot one with my .22-250 and 55 gr Barnes TSX or 60 gr Nosler Partition.

That is how the .375 H&H got popular...it split the difference between the 2.

Jealousy, professional or not is a really poor human trait.

People who are not or have not ever been in the exact same situation, find it easy to label those that were in the situation as frauds.

Corbett and Bell lived and operated during times and situations that people not operating under the same conditions can accept or believe.

It is all too easy for someone/anyone that has not experienced a situation another person has experienced, to label that person as a fraud.

It is also too easy for people that had not been born or lived during those times to accept the accusations, that the person that was actually involved was a fraud, because there is no way in todays world that they can re-create the events as they actually happened.

The key in my opinion is scopes. Second is quality of bullets.

Even a poor/average shot like myself - shooting left handed cause I am left eye dominant but very right handed, with a Swarovski Z6i 1-6x24 and a AHR modified cz 375H&H can shoot a 15 inch gong off hand at 125 yards nearly 8 out of 10 times.

The round is 100 years old - the mauser action is also a 100 years old.

The key is the scope - I could not do the same shooting with a trijicon post sight that used to be on the rifle.

Also the quality of bullets in the last 50 years has changed significantly improving the end outcome.

Same cannot be said for quality of hunter - today its a check book business.

And as with check book hunters (like myself) we can spend a lot of time looking at rifles and other equipment cause we have the luxury too. We are engaging in a high discretionary activity - along with it comes all the trapping of a highly discretionary activity. Corbett was doing civil service. The old africa hunters were earning a living harvesting ivory. Todays poacher with a ak-47 is closer comp to them than a recreational high game hunter.

7 days to Burkina and Biebs I want try the Blaser and see how good the modern tool is.

Mike

I think Lane has it right.

Lion and Leopard are thin skinned animals and very unlike ele, hippo, buff and rhino. The cats may be taken with much lighter rifles than the "minimum" required in most countries. I personally have taken leopard with a single shot from my .300wm, DRT. I have used larger on lion, also a one shot kill, but am considering a 250gr CEB bullet for lion this year.

I shot a tuskless with a 416 Blazer, it was very fast and smooth to handle. I also saw a cow killed cleanly with a 300 win mag solid to the side brain. I've also seen pictures of fellows with their Marlin 45-70 guide gun with cape buff. Good bullets and bullet placement are the key I believe. I missed the brain with the 416 and she sagged but didn't fall, and needed to be shot again.

A factor I haven't seen mentioned yet--

How many hunters got bit/stomped/gored/run over back than--

perhaps we have LEARNED what a DGR should be?

I recall Pondoro Taylor writing that his 350 Rigby killed every bit as good as his .375HH with noticeably less recoil.
[the 350 was only a little more limited in range compared to the 375HH, but rather ample in killing range for most hunting situations]

Modern 35 Whelen loads of today, can [and do] easily exceed the power of orig. 350 Rigby loadings.
In fact the modern loaded .358win can about approximate the vel. of orig. 350 Rigby loadings.
What helped the 350 Rigby perform so well was its tough steel jacket projectile...

Extensive history has shown that 'gunning down' did not much hinder the professionals who could shoot properly and proficiently to begin with-
and extensive history has shown that novice/recreational hunters who 'gunned down' [to rifles they could actually handle] resulted in much more
incidences of cleaner/quicker kills and less work for the PH.......Generations of seasoned PHs in Africa have testified to this.
Saeed who spends so much time in Africa has seen the amount of clients who's shooting abilities are adversely effected by the recoil of their rifle.
Of course, such syndrome is far from being exclusive to Africa.

Just shows intelligent men using what they KNOW can work, rather than trying to make up for their bad shooting by using canons instead fo rifles

I killed a cape buffalo with my .375R lever rifle last August in Zim. My PH, who has killed many, many elephants, told me he'd have no problems guiding me for elephant with that rifle.

I think over thinking your choice of guns is part of the fun. It allows you to accumulate more guns in different calibers, based upon the trending now
So far I have over thought the subject enough to accumulate most of them
Actually, come to think of it, if I were to stop over thinking the subject I could probably afford another hunting trip. I may have to stop that Turnbull restoration

Speaking of Turnbull, that is the lever action I am thinking about pulling out for the buffalo/tuskless hunt this year . . .

This .405 owned by 505Gibbs penetrated the vitals from a frontal shoot at close range. With open sights there is no option but to get in close.

I was very impressed with the caliber and the quality of the rifle.

Some years ago AR poster YUKON took a tuskless with a lever gun.
Stu

Bullet placement is still key. Today the bullets are so much better in construction that all the rules have changed as far as I am concerned. With bullets akin to Barnes TXS, North Fork etc. you can shoot rifles that don't kick your brains out and weigh a ton at the end of the day.
The 7 mm and 6.5 bullets offered today are day and night different from way back when. Put them in the proper spot and go get your dead critter.
Better tomorrows!

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Mike,

I wonder if it was a case of what they had and what the could get ammo for.

Jeff

...................................................................BINGO!

The American Indians once used stone headed spears, then graduated to Atlatls, a vast improvement over the original spears, then to bows and arrows, another improvement. Then the white man introduced smoothbore muskets, then rifled barreled long rifles, and later cartridge rifles.

It is common knowledge that TR wounded about as many animals as he killed with his CRF Springfield bolt rifle. The 1895 Winchester was about as good as anything available in 1905,and I'm not sure the 1895 is not a CRF rifle as well, using an inline single stack magazine. Corbett had about the cream of the crop for his use on man eating cats in his day.

IMO, It all boils down to "YOU USE WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO YOU"!

I believe the fact that the things we have available gives us a choice that those guys didn't have. I say if they had had that choice, their books may have read very differently.

Because all types are available today puts us in a place where we do not have to use inferior firearms, and for every one of the famous guys who lived long enough to write all those books we love reading, there was likely five who bite the dust using some of those then modern firearms of the day.

There is no denying the fact that those guys were REAL hunters, and shooters, not to mention very LUCKY at times!

....................................................................NO?

quote:

Just shows intelligent men using what they KNOW can work, rather than trying to make up for their bad shooting by using canons instead fo rifles

Plus 1 on that thought.

quote:

With bullets akin to Barnes TXS, North Fork etc. you can shoot rifles that don't kick your brains out and weigh a ton at the end of the day.

My thoughts have always been that if the old timers had the bullets that we have today (mono flat nosed solids especially) , most of them would have used sub-375 calibers and they would have been happy as clams. I have a feeling bore size remained large because bullet technology was far behind propellant technology.

It comes to me that Bell and Corbett did their hunting on foot.

Carrying a 6 - 7lb 7 x 57 (or 6.5, .303...etc) would be far preferable to carrying a 10lb (+-) 450/400. The lightness of the bolt gun would also mean that it was in your hands when you needed it..........not on a sling or in the hands of a gun bearer.

Bell and Corbett where hunters who stalked up close and placed their shots with rifles they were intimately familiar with. These rifles were also of light recoil yet they fired a projectile that had adequate penetration to reach the organ that was the target.

Due to their hunting abilities they'd have often been shooting at game which didn't know they were there.....so the shot needn't be rushed. Yes I know that when shooting multiple elephant out of a herd then there would have been some alarmed targets.

They were experienced enough not to be overly upset by "buck fever". These factors would all combine to a high percentage of one shot kills although they were using "modest" artillery.

Extensive knowledge of anatomy would also aided in this. Remember Bell disected an elephant skull to locate the position of the brain after failing to find it using "conventional" shot placement.

Given all these considerations the 7mms would be fine for "offensive" purposes but, if all went wrong, they wouldn't be your choice.....or Bell's or Corbett's or Taylor's.........as a "defensive" weapon.

I put it too you would you like an experienced shot with a 7x57 using good round nose solids shooting at your favourite elephant?.

Overthink? I just point and shoot.

Of course we overthink everything!!! We sit around all year in anticipation of our next trip to Africa. We discuss (argue) on the forums about rifles, calibers, boots, bullets, clothing, scopes and anything else related to African hunting. We relate (brag about) our own hunts and the animals taken, and where we're going next.

Then we get to Africa, and the PH that meets us...the guy who actually does it for a living...is there in flip flops, shorts (or a Mankini in Buzz' case) a T-shirt, and flip-flops, carrying a battle-scarred old Ruger Mk 1 in 458 Win Mag, with no two cartridges from the same manufacturer in his ammo belt.

Of course we overthink...that's half the fun!

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
Of course we overthink everything!!! We sit around all year in anticipation of our next trip to Africa. We discuss (argue) on the forums about rifles, calibers, boots, bullets, clothing, scopes and anything else related to African hunting. We relate (brag about) our own hunts and the animals taken, and where we're going next.

Then we get to Africa, and the PH that meets us...the guy who actually does it for a living...is there in flip flops, shorts (or a Mankini in Buzz' case) a T-shirt, and flip-flops, carrying a battle-scarred old Ruger Mk 1 in 458 Win Mag, with no two cartridges from the same manufacturer in his ammo belt.

Of course we overthink...that's half the fun!

Corbett used black powder rifles in the early days. The 275 was used in some occasions when in open hill country where he could get some longer shots. Most of his hunts were with a double.

Anderson's books are mostly fiction with a bit of fact thrown in. The places and locations are authentic - I have been to / hunted in some of them. But he never shot a tiger or an elephant in his life. His son Don has.

Both of them used the 423 Mauser aka 10.75X68.

The 405 Win was quite popular in India for the large sambar deer and for tiger & leopard. But I have heard of big failures on Gaur.

Most important though - 80%+ of animals shot in India were with a 12 bore shotgun & SG, LG or Ball ammo! Some of those - including elephant - were also shot with village muzzle loaders!

My avatar photo is of my dad with a cattle killing tiger shot with Astra hammer 12 bore & Elley Lethal Ball - 1952.